Submarine propulsion using evaporation The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InHow could a simple submarine be built using 100 BC technology?Would future combat submarines come with jet propulsion thruster?Gravity PropulsionHow do I track someone who wants to disappear using a submarine?Two-stage fusion propulsionViability of a Space SubmarineAirship Propulsion SystemPropulsion SystemsLow-efficiency fusion propulsion?Biological Blimps: Propulsion
Origin of "cooter" meaning "vagina"
Can someone be penalized for an "unlawful" act if no penalty is specified?
Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)
Why was M87 targetted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?
The difference between dialogue marks
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
How to save as into a customized destination on macOS?
Are there incongruent pythagorean triangles with the same perimeter and same area?
Earliest use of the term "Galois extension"?
Why do we hear so much about the Trump administration deciding to impose and then remove tariffs?
Why did Acorn's A3000 have red function keys?
Shouldn't "much" here be used instead of "more"?
What is the closest word meaning "respect for time / mindful"
Did Section 31 appear in Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Is a "Democratic" Oligarchy-Style System Possible?
Write faster on AT24C32
Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
"as much details as you can remember"
Why is the maximum length of OpenWrt’s root password 8 characters?
Output the Arecibo Message
Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?
Is there any way to tell whether the shot is going to hit you or not?
What did it mean to "align" a radio?
Submarine propulsion using evaporation
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InHow could a simple submarine be built using 100 BC technology?Would future combat submarines come with jet propulsion thruster?Gravity PropulsionHow do I track someone who wants to disappear using a submarine?Two-stage fusion propulsionViability of a Space SubmarineAirship Propulsion SystemPropulsion SystemsLow-efficiency fusion propulsion?Biological Blimps: Propulsion
$begingroup$
In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?
edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!
science-based engineering underwater
asked Apr 5 at 9:47
EthEth
2,8211821
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?
edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!
science-based engineering underwater
asked Apr 5 at 9:47
EthEth
2,8211821
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:51
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 9:54
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
Apr 5 at 9:56
5
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:58
9
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Apr 5 at 10:03
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?
edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!
science-based engineering underwater
asked Apr 5 at 9:47
EthEth
2,8211821
$endgroup$
In a post-post-apocalyptic world with adequately schizophrenic tech, a tinkerer decides to build a submarine engine around a lump of radium, or some other reliable source of heat. But instead of using some complicated setup to drive a propeller, the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
Assuming there is no problem of evaporation residues or material strength, what would be the efficiency of such an engine? And assuming problems with evaporation residues, how long would the engine be expected to run before needing to scrape the chambre?
edit: For this question, assume stealth is not a problem. The goal is not to build a SSBN!
science-based engineering underwater
science-based engineering underwater
asked Apr 5 at 9:47
EthEth
2,8211821
asked Apr 5 at 9:47
EthEth
2,8211821
edited Apr 5 at 11:11
Eth
asked Apr 5 at 9:47
EthEth
2,8211821
asked Apr 5 at 9:47
EthEth
2,8211821
asked Apr 5 at 9:47
EthEth
2,8211821
2,8211821
2
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:51
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 9:54
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
Apr 5 at 9:56
5
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:58
9
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Apr 5 at 10:03
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:51
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 9:54
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
Apr 5 at 9:56
5
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:58
9
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Apr 5 at 10:03
2
2
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:51
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:51
1
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 9:54
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 9:54
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
Apr 5 at 9:56
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
Apr 5 at 9:56
5
5
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:58
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:58
9
9
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Apr 5 at 10:03
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Apr 5 at 10:03
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered Apr 5 at 10:07
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.7k29211437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:42
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
Apr 5 at 17:09
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Apr 5 at 23:19
$begingroup$
After looking at pop-pop boats, it looks like that's what it would actually be. With at best 0.1% efficiency at the surface, I think we can safely say the submarine, if it moves at all, will never be anything more than a toy.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 7 at 20:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered Apr 5 at 10:11
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,95311034
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:44
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 10:51
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 11:09
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 11:31
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 13:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered Apr 5 at 11:03
RenanRenan
52.8k15120262
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143305%2fsubmarine-propulsion-using-evaporation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered Apr 5 at 10:07
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.7k29211437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:42
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
Apr 5 at 17:09
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Apr 5 at 23:19
$begingroup$
After looking at pop-pop boats, it looks like that's what it would actually be. With at best 0.1% efficiency at the surface, I think we can safely say the submarine, if it moves at all, will never be anything more than a toy.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 7 at 20:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered Apr 5 at 10:07
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.7k29211437
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:42
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
Apr 5 at 17:09
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Apr 5 at 23:19
$begingroup$
After looking at pop-pop boats, it looks like that's what it would actually be. With at best 0.1% efficiency at the surface, I think we can safely say the submarine, if it moves at all, will never be anything more than a toy.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 7 at 20:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered Apr 5 at 10:07
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.7k29211437
$endgroup$
the engine simply evaporate water in a chamber, then uses the pressure to push water and/or vapour at the rear in order to create thrust.
If you just pick water from the depth you are and evaporate it, you will not get any additional pressure. The vapor bubble will just last until it cools down and collapse. This will have a very low efficiency. It's called a pop boat engine, and you might have seen it in Studio Ghibli's Ponyo.
If you want to pressurize the water before evaporating it, you need to add a compressor. But at that point close the cycle and use a conventional Rankine cycle like it is done in all nuclear submarines. That will allow you to keep the advantage of submarines: their low visibility.
A tail of bubbling water is really a poor way to hide a ship. If you accept being visible, save the struggle of going under the water surface and stay above it.
answered Apr 5 at 10:07
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.7k29211437
edited Apr 5 at 10:47
answered Apr 5 at 10:07
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.7k29211437
answered Apr 5 at 10:07
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.7k29211437
answered Apr 5 at 10:07
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.7k29211437
90.7k29211437
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:42
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
Apr 5 at 17:09
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Apr 5 at 23:19
$begingroup$
After looking at pop-pop boats, it looks like that's what it would actually be. With at best 0.1% efficiency at the surface, I think we can safely say the submarine, if it moves at all, will never be anything more than a toy.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 7 at 20:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:42
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
Apr 5 at 17:09
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Apr 5 at 23:19
$begingroup$
After looking at pop-pop boats, it looks like that's what it would actually be. With at best 0.1% efficiency at the surface, I think we can safely say the submarine, if it moves at all, will never be anything more than a toy.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 7 at 20:06
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:42
$begingroup$
Interesting, so what kind of efficiency can we expect? 10%? How does it vary with pressure?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:42
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
Apr 5 at 17:09
$begingroup$
@Eth if the pressure is too high you will not get steam no matter how much you heat the water. I suspect this would have to be just beneath the surface in order to work at all.
$endgroup$
– Nathaniel
Apr 5 at 17:09
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Apr 5 at 23:19
$begingroup$
To improve upon "pop boat", we don't need to pressurize - just provide a separate water intake.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Apr 5 at 23:19
$begingroup$
After looking at pop-pop boats, it looks like that's what it would actually be. With at best 0.1% efficiency at the surface, I think we can safely say the submarine, if it moves at all, will never be anything more than a toy.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 7 at 20:06
$begingroup$
After looking at pop-pop boats, it looks like that's what it would actually be. With at best 0.1% efficiency at the surface, I think we can safely say the submarine, if it moves at all, will never be anything more than a toy.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 7 at 20:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered Apr 5 at 10:11
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,95311034
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:44
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 10:51
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 11:09
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 11:31
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 13:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered Apr 5 at 10:11
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,95311034
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:44
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 10:51
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 11:09
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 11:31
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 13:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered Apr 5 at 10:11
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,95311034
$endgroup$
This sounds like you would be creating a form of Pulsejet. Fill a chamber at rear of submarine with water, superheat it, then open the chamber for a 'pulse' as the water expands. Flush the chamber with cold water, close it, and repeat.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be slower, less stealthy, and more complicated than just having a basic, continuous, closed-cycle steam-engine turn a driveshaft, and a gearbox connecting that to your propeller.
answered Apr 5 at 10:11
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,95311034
answered Apr 5 at 10:11
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,95311034
answered Apr 5 at 10:11
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,95311034
answered Apr 5 at 10:11
ChronocidalChronocidal
6,95311034
6,95311034
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:44
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 10:51
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 11:09
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 11:31
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 13:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:44
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 10:51
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 11:09
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 11:31
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 13:56
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:44
$begingroup$
The big advantage of the (air) pulsejet is that it is incredibly simple: in some cases, nothing more than a fun-shaped tube and a fuel injector. If this can be made to work like a pulsejet, wouldn't it be simpler than a conventional system, then?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 10:44
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 10:51
$begingroup$
@Eth Sure, if you were using fuel instead of superheated water - no need for the additional valves, et cetera. At which point, the "using evaporation" part of the question has been completely ignored
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 10:51
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 11:09
$begingroup$
Even if a pure valvless design is impossible, wouldn't a one-way valve still be simpler than a complete closed-cycle steam engine?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 11:09
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 11:31
$begingroup$
@Eth For the pulsejet, you will require at least 2 valves (in and out), a pump - and the "out" valve needs to be mechanically actuated, otherwise it opens before you have built up enough pressure for propulsion. A closed-cycle condensing steam engine requires 0 valves and 1 pump
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Apr 5 at 11:31
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 13:56
$begingroup$
Even with two valves, how is that simpler than a closed circuit, a cooling heat exchanger, a turbine and a propeller?
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 13:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered Apr 5 at 11:03
RenanRenan
52.8k15120262
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered Apr 5 at 11:03
RenanRenan
52.8k15120262
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered Apr 5 at 11:03
RenanRenan
52.8k15120262
$endgroup$
Skip using vapor. If you are going nuclear, first separate hydrogen from the water, then heat the hydrogen. You will have incredibly higher pressure, and will have one-upped the world's space agencies by beating them to the first usable nuclear thermal rocket. Such rockets are very efficient in a vacuum - I don't know about their efficiency in water, but hey, as long as you can electrolyze water and your uranium lasts, you'll be able to keep going.
Provide enough thrust, and your submarine will not swim - it will fly underwater, by creating a bubble of vapor around it due to supercavitation. Your submarine will need wings. Seriously!
answered Apr 5 at 11:03
RenanRenan
52.8k15120262
answered Apr 5 at 11:03
RenanRenan
52.8k15120262
answered Apr 5 at 11:03
RenanRenan
52.8k15120262
answered Apr 5 at 11:03
RenanRenan
52.8k15120262
52.8k15120262
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143305%2fsubmarine-propulsion-using-evaporation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
You do realize that a submarine leaving a trail of boiling, bubbling water behind isn't very well hidden, right?
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:51
1
$begingroup$
@Elmy On the other hand, think of the intimidation factor! :)
$endgroup$
– Eth
Apr 5 at 9:54
$begingroup$
If you don't specify the "problems with evaporation", how can we estimate the mean time to trouble?
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
Apr 5 at 9:56
5
$begingroup$
@Eth Or the effect of having your opponents incapacitated because they're lying on the floor, laughing at the farting whale...
$endgroup$
– Elmy
Apr 5 at 9:58
9
$begingroup$
"Residues": submarines and surface ships desalinate the water taken from the outside before putting it in the boiler. A regular nuclear submarine works by using a reliable source of heat to boil (that is, "evaporate") water and then use the vapor under high pressure to drive a turbine. This has the advantage that the vapor does not need to expand against external pressure, does not need to operate at insanely high tempeatures, allows for much greater efficiency, and works in a closed circuit so that the submarine does not need to have open pipes to the surrounding medium.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Apr 5 at 10:03